No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Early American Attitude Toward Naturalized Americans Abroad
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
Extract
Of all the early problems of American diplomacy, few held more dangerous potentialities or proved more difficult of solution than those involving the rights and privileges of naturalized Americans when traveling or resident in foreign lands. In America, the position of such people was fairly well defined. The laws, which were brief, merely referred to them as “citizens of the United States,” the equals, in short, of the native-born in every particular save that of eligibility for the Presidency. It was when naturalized Americans entered the country to which, because of birth within its jurisdiction, they bore a different relation than did native Americans, that difficulties arose. The American Government was forced to decide whether it ; should extend to them, while they remained in such countries, the same protection granted to native Americans, or whether it should follow the practice of the English Government, which washed its hands of naturalized Englishmen the moment they entered the country of their native allegiance.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1936
References
1 The laws are printed in part in House Document No. 326, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., pp.8,9.
2 Ibid.,p.9.
3 Ibid.
4 Jefferson to Gallatin, July 12,1803. Writings of Albert Gallatin ( Adams, H. editor,Philadelphia,1879), Vol.I, p.128.Google Scholar
5 Knox to Jefferson, Jan. 17,1792.Consular Correspondence, Dublin, Vol.I. He also suggested that the American Government order American captains upon landing in England to take their crews before a British magistrate and have them swear to their American citizenship. A year earlier,Feb. 26,1791,Joshua,Consul at London, had advocated requiring American captains to carry a list of their crews with particulars as to age,place of nativity,residence, etc., which should be deposited with the American consul while the ship remained in a foreign port. There were other details included in the plan, but it would not have helped British-born naturalized Americans when in England. For a fuller account see Zimmerman, J. F., Impressment of American Seamen (New York,1925), p.52.
6 Jefferson to Pinckney, June 11,1792.American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol.III, p.574.(Hereafter cited A.S.P.F.R.)
7 There were complaints that the impressing officers sometimes left the ships shorthanded at sea.
8 Pinckney to Grenville, June 16,1796. Foreign Office Manuscripts 5/16. (Hereafter cited F.O.)
9 Grenville to Pinckney, July 17,1796. F.O. 5/16.
10 Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess.,col. 811.
11 Ibid., col. 1423. For the law itself see U.S.Statutes at Large, Vol.I, p.477.
12 Liston to Grenville, Oct. 28,1797. F.O. 5/18.
13 The London Gazette, Oct. 17 to Oct. 20,1807, pp.1393–1394.
14 To John Adams. Dec. 27,1807. Writings of Adams, John Quincy(Ford, W.C., ed.,New York,1914),Vol. III, p.169.Google Scholar
15 A letter to the Boston Patriot dated Jan. 9,1809. Adams, C. F., Works of John Adams (Boston,1854), Vol.IX, p.315.
16 Rose to Canning, Feb. 6, 1808. F.O. 5/56.A part of this document is printed in Henry Adams,History of the United States,Vol.IV, p.188.
17 See Smith to Pinckney, Nov. 23,1809,A.S.P.F.R., Vol.III, p.321; also Monroe to Foster, May 30,1812,printed in Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law (Washington,1906), Vol.III, p.563.
18 A copy of these letters is to be found in Dispatches and Official Papers Relating to the United States. F.O. 353/57. A similar opinion was expressed in a letter to the Boston Sentinel of Feb. 4, 1804.
19 Trumbull to Liston, July 21, 1811. F.O. 5/82.
20 Liston to Wellesley, July 23, 1811. F.O. 5/82.
21 Russell to Monroe, Sept. 17, 1812. A.S.P.F.R., Vol. III, p. 594.
22 A.S.P.F.R., Vol. III, p. 595.,
23 Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., 2d Sess., col.937.
24 Ibid., col. 939.
25 Ibid., cols. 960–1055.
26 Monroe to Gallatin, Adams, Bayard. A.S.P.F.R., Vol. III, p. 696.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 See, for example, the pamphlet by A New England Farmer (John Lowell), Mr. Madison’s War (New York, 1812), and the Report of the Committee of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts on the Subject of ImpressedSeamen (Boston, 1813).
31 Macdonald, W., Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the United States, 1776–1861(New York, 1898), p. 207.Google Scholar
32 Richardson, J. D., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Washington, 1896), Vol. I, p. 555.Google Scholar
33 On the other hand, an unsigned and undated account of the impressment controversy which was prepared a short time later for the State Department, had this to say concerning the idea: “As such a stipulation would, by abridging the rights of citizens, have conflicted with existing laws, and perhaps the Constitution of the United States, it is doubtful whether it could legally have been adopted; and a similar doubt may be entertained of the propriety of the authority given in 1813 to the American commissioners to stipulate that no British sailors should thereafter benaturalized.” This account is to be found in the Miscellaneous Documents of the Bureau of Indexes and Archives of the State Department.
34 OnMarch 1, 1815, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs reported that the consideration of the President’s recommendation should be postponed until the next session. Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sees., col. 1255. On March 7, 1816, the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate reported adversely on the recommendation. Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 1st Sess., col. 172.
35 On May 21, 1816, Monroe, Secretary of State,instructed John Quincy Adams, Minister to Great Britain, to propose a treaty stipulating that “neither party shall employ in its naval or merchant service, native citizens or subjects of the other, with the exception of those already naturalized, of whom there are very few in the United States.” U. S. Dept. of State, Instructions, United States Ministers, Vol. VIII, p. 62. The negotiations initiated by this proposal went on intermittently until April, 1818, when they were finally dropped. Although John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, did not approve of the principles involved (See Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Vol. IV, pp. 146–149), Richard, Rush, the new Minister to Great Britain, made substantially the same offer on June 20, 1818. Memorandum to the British Government, F.O. 5/137. The amendments which the British proposed proved unacceptable and again no agreement was arrived at.Google Scholar
36 J. B., Digest of International Law, Vol. III, pp. 735–736.
37 Dated June 19,1826. Instructions, United States Ministers, Vol. XI, pp. 94–95.
38 Ibid., p. 95.
39 The most satisfactory treatment of this subject in print is the sketchy chapter in Moore, J. B., Principles of American Diplomacy (New York, 1918), Chap. VII.
40 The account of this controversy was taken from a despatch, accompanied by voluminous enclosures, from Consul Cuthbert to McLane, Secretary of State, Aug. 16, 1833. Consular Correspondence, Hamburg, Vol. IV.
41 Forsyth to Strobecker, April 15, 1835. U.S.Dept. of State, Domestic Letters, Vol. XXVII, p. 310.
42 Wheaton to J. P. Knoche, July 24, 1840. Enclosed in Wheaton to Forsyth, July 29, 1840. Despatches, Prussia, Vol. II.
43 Webster wrote on March 21, 1843, “The Government of the United States have no power to extend protection to naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to their country.” Domestic Letters, Vol. XXXIII, p. 117.
44 Moore, J. B., Works of James Buchanan (Philadelphia, 1908–1911), Vol. I, p. 4.Google Scholar
45 Buchanan Manuscripts, Pennsylvania State Historical Society, Letters and Drafts, 1813–1852.
46 Buchanan to I. D. D. Russet, Nov. 25, 1845.Domestic Letters, Vol. XXXV, p. 330.
47 Buchanan to Huesman, March 10, 1847. Domestic Letters, Vol. XXXVI, p. 200.
48 For letters to naturalized Americans explaining this position see Domestic Letters, Vol.XI, p. 254, and Senate Executive Document, No.38, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 55.
49 For example, see Fay’s note to Minister of Hanover, May 8, 1852. Copy enclosed in Fay to Webster, May 15, 1852. Despatches, Prussia, Vol. VII.
50 Fay to Webster, May 15, 1852. Despatches, Prussia, Vol. VII.
51 Barnard to Webster, August 3, 1852. Despatches, Prussia, Vol. VIII.
52 Barnard to Webster, July 13, 1852.Ibid.
53 Buchanan to Marcy, Oct. 18, 1853. Despatches,England, Vol. LXV.
54 Buchanan to Marcy, private, Dec. 22, 1853. Marcy Papers, Library of Congress.
55 This group included Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, Isaac Toney, Secretary of the Navy, and Jeremiah Black, Attorney General.
56 Dated Dec. 10,1858. Instructions, Prussia,Vol. XIV, p. 259.
57 Ibid.,p. 265.
58 Dated Dec. 9, 1859.Ibid., p. 304.
59 9 Opinions Attorneys General, p. 360.
60 See for example, 8 Opinions Attorneys General, pp. 139–169.
61 9 Opinions Attorneys. General, p. 363.
62 Black to Buchanan,July 23, 1859. Buchanan Mss.
63 Ibid.
64 Cass to Wright, July 8, 1859. Instructions,Prussia, Vol. XIV, p. 295.
65 This was part of his fourth annual message to Congress. Moore, J. B., Works of James Buchanan, Vol. XI, p. 28.
66 Seward to Judd, Feb. 10, 1862. Instructions,Prussia, Vol. XIV, pp. 345–346.
67 Seward to Judd, April 25, 1862.Ibid., p. 350.
68 Seward to Judd, March 7, 1863. Foreign Relations, 1863, Part 2, p. 940.
69 For a brief account of the negotiations leading to one of these agreements, see my article on the Anglo-American treaty of 1870 in the American Historical Review, Vol. XXXIX (July, 1934), pp. 663–681.